Very informative article indeed. - Anil Kumar - Sept. 8, 2006

Aarcee, if Dutt indeed comes from Greek names like Diodotus and Herodotus then how come Dutt's are Brahmins instead of Mlechh? If Paswan comes from Farsi Paasban meaning 'Guard' how come Paswans are SC rather than Kshatriya? Just a thought. - Rajendra Kumar - Sept. 8, 2006

What's in a name.....really. A lot if you care. Why is Aarcee called Aarcee, while we have to identify ourselves with our real names and place of origin.

Anyway, thanks Aarcee for the informative account. I share your views that it is really an academic and interesting exercise.

I would like to add one more interesting aspect here about middle names. In western India, specially Maharashtra and Gujarat, there is a custom of using father's name as middle name. e.g. Sunil Manohar Gavaskar, Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani.

Thanks Mr. Rajesh Chaubey for sharing the Wikipedia link. Readers may try this link for some insight into caste based surnames (Specially Rajput, Brahmin, Gujarati). Let me add here that the idea is not to emphasise caste distinctions here, but merely "a result of academic curiosity" as Aarcee would put it. - Shitanshu, Mumbai - Sept. 8, 2006

Mr Aarcee, I have high regards for you, which often stops me from arguing with you. But, with due respect, I’d like to make a few points here to clarify my stand.

As you said it, if it is due to academic interest, it must be welcomed. I don’t know what makes you sure that it was. I don’t know Mr Abhay Kumar well, but I know many who are interested to know such details out of anything but academic interest. But, for argument’s sake, let us say it was.

You are a member of this forum for much longer a period than me. In the short experience that I have had with this forum, I’ve always found that such a topic may start with academic interest, but later it transgresses and moves into a direction which ends up in calling names to each other and ultimately increasing the differences among us. What value is that knowledge of, which leaves some of us antagonized? One may argue that there will always be differences of opinion and that should not stop us from exploring and discussing. Well, it sounds good if we have a group of people all of who behave in a matured manner all the time. But, we can’t be sure if all Jha’s will behave properly if someone tries to publicly establish a fact that the name ‘Jha’ comes from say ‘Jhadu’, even if there were a reason to historically believe so. Hope you got my point. If I quote none but you, one can choose his friends but not his relatives. So, considering this PD forum a family, should we be discussing such topics, knowing some of the members well? I’m not afraid of them, I’m afraid of seeing this forum falling apart. It’s not possible to keep everyone happy, but we can try as much as we can.

By the way, there is a dispute over Varahmihir being from Iran, according to the theory of ‘Mihira’/’Mithra’. It’s just a matter of interest. Some are interested in his principles of mathematics and astrology; some in his origins, some in none. But, one should not discourage others from pursuing individual interests. I apologize to Mr Abhay, if I stopped him from learning. - Kumod Jha - Sept. 8, 2006

Many thanks to Aarcee jee & Chaubey Sahab. At last i got some answer from the online community of PatnaDaily.Com. The information on the link referred by Sri Rajesh Chaubey is also very useful as it deals in context of surnames prevailing in all parts of India. Thanks again. - Abhay Kumar - Sept. 8, 2006

This turned out to be a potluck lunch here! In a potluck lunch, everyone brings one dish and collectively done, it becomes a feast. Similarly, a lot of PD readers supplemented my article with wonderful information that added to it immensely. Rajesh added the Wikipedia link, Shitanshu added the information about the Father's first name becoming the middle name of the son among the Maharashtrians and Rajendra Kumar asked follow up questions. It all adds to enrich our knowledge by being able to share it on this forum.

I could see Kumod's scepticism going into the article. I understood his approach completely. It did not happen this time, but it has happened so many times in past that one or two readers try to steer the discussion in the direction of the "passions of the street", and the discussion degenerates into name calling. Once that happens, rational people abandon their high intellectual ground and jump in the mud pit to do their share of mud slinging. It does not achieve anything. Everyone gets dirty, but for those who enjoy this perverted pleasure this is blissful. I am guilty of being drawn into such virtual brawls before. I am not the least bit proud of myself for having done that.

I am delighted to see that all readers have kept this discussion on at high intellectual plane. Maybe the term "reasons for academic curiosity" disarmed many - or it could also be that as a community of readers we are learning and evolving to discuss issues without being riled up like uneducated bumpkins who hang around the street corners.

But Let's address the follow up questions by Rajendra Kumar. Most of the time, when we talk about things that happened in the distant past, we fail to realize that it was a different world then. The institutions that we have in the present day had not been formed then. Those people could not even have foreseen the future that is our present today.

Why is Dutt a Brahmin last name and not a Malech? Well, the concept of Malech came to exist after Indians came in contact with the Caucasians who came visiting on Ships from Europe. A caste-ridden society eager to prevent miscegenation (mixing of races)was quick to label them 'Malech' (dirty one). There is also a parallel belief that it was a practice related to personal hygiene - wiping instead of washing - that earned them that name. Maybe it was a combination of both these reasons, but they ended up being labeled as 'Malech'. That is a fact. The time frame of this was the 1700's to 1800's.

Diodotus (which I personally think is a western interpretation of the cuniform script for Devdutt) lived in 225 BC. That is almost 2000 years before the word 'malech' was ever coined! Let's imagine the world of 'Diodotus'. There was no other major faith existing at that time. Pre Christian practices of worship (idol worship, bonfire day etc) were the order of the day. Only the very northwest part of the Indian subcontinent had been settled and explored by the Aryan tribes. Most of India was thickly forested and was home to tribes that bore animal tribal names - Vanaras, Reechas, Nagas, Kurmis, Chilas etc etc. I must add here that there is also a parallel Indocentric view that disagrees with all this. But till Abraham came around, idol worship was very much the currency of culture all over Middle East, the Mediterranean and as far east as Northwestern India. The rise of Abrahamic faiths later replaced the old culture with a prophet based faith system. However, the people did not give up their traditions, and till today, old customs like Holi (India), Nauroz (Afghanistan & Iran) and Halloween (the Western world) that existed at that time have survived the brunt of the later faith systems and are very much a part of modern life.

As far as the last name Paswan goes, the terms "SC and ST" were creations of social scientists that came about after our independence. The word Paswaan was used in India during and before the Mughal era. With India stretching as far as Gandhar (modern day Khandahar), Persia (modern day Iran) was next door. Today, even without our realizing, the infulence of Farsi on Bhojpuri, Awadhi and even Hindi are very strong. We just do not realize it because we do not study Farsi anymore. So, to answer your question, Paasban was a profession. It was caste independent. Anyone who was hired as a guard was a Paasban. - Hope this clears things up a little. - Aarcee - Sept. 8, 2006

You too, Mr. Aarcee. I had very high opinions of you. There is a saying that one man's love is another man's porn. Like love, surnames are private and everyone is very emotional about it, so let it be so. If you want to enlighten the whole world about origins of surnames, then you could have gone one step back and one step ahead too. One step back means what was the system before all these surnames begin to take root and why people started to associate themselves so and so much with these surnames. One step ahead means you could also have elaborated how these surnames are divisive and how many of us have burned and suffered because of our surnames. Have you forget about all the caste wars in Bihar ? Do you really need to remind everyone of Belchi, Bethani Tola, Pipra, Parasbigha and more than 5000 people that have been killed for no fault of theirs except their surnames ? You say that those who forget the history are condemned to repeat it. Tell me, Mr. Aarcee what good can you except to come out of this "academic" interest except probably hurting people cutting across the surnames barriers. I am a champion of free-wheeling discussion and debate too, but you being an active member of this forum, I thought you would have realised that this forum lacks the tolerance to have such a kind of free wheeling discussion. It invariably degenerates into name-calling. With freedom comes responsibility, Mr. Aarcee. Lets try to inculcate that too.

As an aside, why did you choose to use this pseudonym without your surname ? I thought you had a good reason behind it and you were above all this. Here is another meaning of being a Bihari, I guess. Put 5 Biharis together and you would have a caste war. Educated Biharis, they are worse of the casteists than uneducated. - Ravindra Kumar - Sept. 8, 2006

Ravindra ji, I don't think Mr. Aarcee's goal was to write a comprehensive treatise on the history, geography, and the science of Indian surnames. It was a response to a question posed by another visitor of PD and in my opinion, Mr. Aarcee did quite a remarkable job in such short paragraphs.

Furthermore, if discussing the origin of surnames in India for purely academic reasons somehow creates 'caste-based tension' among some folks, then I pity the nation and pity the people who live here. I don't think Mr. Aarcee was trying to create a caste-based communal divide here and if some people think that way then they are probably the first ones to judge people by their last names. - Arun Mishra - Sept. 8, 2006

The mention of surnames here has been made as an answer to a question. There is absolutely no direct or indirect derogatory reference to anyone. It is about how names evolved. If someone says man evolved from monkeys should some "intellectual champions" throw punches in cyber space for being compared with monkeys? As beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, filth too lies in the eye of the beholder. Clean your eyes and look again from a proper perspective. - Rajesh Chaubey - Sept. 9, 2006

Mishraji,

I am not speculating into intentions of Mr. Aarcee here. We were ignorant and he took it upon himself to give a crash course. I would like to believe he wanted to teach us an advanced level graduate course on "Origins of Caste and Surnames" like Charles Darwin did with "Origin of Species". As if we were not obsessed with casteism already and knew enough nuances of castes already, now we have very enlightened information of what does it mean to be a Paaswan, Malech and myriad others. Maybe I should be thankful to him.

I am a scientist by profession and have published papers and patents so far but all of them need some solid data and reasoning. While Mr Aarcee was at it, it would have been nice to give some sources and references too. I mean some historical perspective, basis, facts too. Without such facts, sources, and historical proofs, I can come up with a nice little, conspiracy theory that origin of surname Mishra is actually from a Shudra caste and calling them a Brahmin is an eyewash. Haven't we heard enough such conspiracy theories about 9/11, JFK, Feroze Gandhi and others.

Folks dont get me wrong. Probably none of you have been a victim of caste wars. My family has suffered a lot and I think probably very few of us realise how much hatred it can generate. - Ravindra Kumar - Sept. 9, 2006

Well, Chaubeyji let me address my concern here once again. I am not against teaching the ignorant about anything and I believe in free press to the hilt. But I believe the subject matter should be chosen carefully in public. It is very easy to dissect all this here but to those who have suffered at the hands of forward castes especially the backward castes, SC/STs it is a very touchy subject. One of the castes is something that I belong to and the explanation given is totally wrong, contrary to what I have grown up with. I found the explanation humiliating, contrary to what my parents have taught me and I take umbrage in it. I challenge you Mr. Chaubey to go to my village and give the same explanation to the village folks there. You would be in for a surprise to see the magnitude of the anger because they would look at this explanation as coming from a forward caste bloke with giving a twist to the belief they have grown up with. If I have particular surname, then it is up to my curiosity and reason to find out what it means. I don't need some other bloke to teach me otherwise offending explanations and expect me to believe it. Haven't Brahmins have taught us enough already that I need some more teachings from them? - Ravindra Kumar - Sept. 9, 2006

Mr. Ravindra Kumar, you are way out of line. I don't know what your background is but to spin Aarcee's article in an attempt to give it a caste color, a war between backward and forward is absolutely preposterous. If I said my car broke down on way to work today, people like you will say that it is an insult to talk about my car when there are atrocities being committed on backwards as we speak. You can spin any topic into a backward-forward issue!

Blacks were brutalized by whites in America. That doesn't mean America has put a ban on talking about Blacks or study Black history.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Mishras came from Shudras if that gives you some sort of vicarious pleasure. It appears your problem is not with what Aarcee has written but with the Brahmans or upper castes in general.

If you disagree with Aarcee on some of what he has stated, why don't you try to refute his theory with facts and arguments of your own instead of trying to instigate a caste war? And you call yourself a scientist?

Either refute his claim in an intellectual, academic manner or stay away from the discussion but please don't turn it into a backward-forward issue. I don't know Aarcee any more than you do but I am sure he will love to have a healthy debate with you and even admit mistake if he made one. But trying to turn it into a backward-forward issue is just way out of line.

This kind of uncalled for attack is taking over and over again in this forum. Someone talks about something without any ulterior motive and suddenly he gets attacked by one group or another. You can't talk about anything these days without antagonizing anyone. Maybe it's time to shut down this forum. Maybe it's time to shut down the entire Internet because everything offends someone in the world. - Arun Mishra  - Sept. 9, 2006

This is why Kumod did not want to touch this seemingly innocent topic. But, if talking about such a simple topic in a manner completely academic and without being derogatory to anyone can evoke the wrath of a few self proclaimed victims, then it means that we can not discuss anything here. Anything you say, however nicely, can be spun to caste, religion or whatever passions each one of harbours within him or her.

I have no caste, I have no last name that I want to go with here - or else some will prejudge me. I do not even add 'ji' or 'sahab' to people's names. I talk of / to them by their first names only with the same (if not more) respect and reverence as if I was adding ji, janab or sahab to their names. I am sure some of you must have noticed that already that I have done so for years. I want to go away from this social position thing that has been a ball and chain on our legs. It is sad that some, despite having moved to elevated social positions in life, still want to wallow in their hate for other fellow Biharis. Now you can not even say that "The earth is round" without them dragging the maltreatment or injustice that they suffered. I, like most, have suffered my own share of injustice in life, but should I go express my rage on someone talking about say, "Greenhouse gases"? No ! My education has enlightened and empowered me to rise above this pettiness. Every fight has its place and forum. You have to let go and move on, especially if you are better off in life... There isn't a ghost in every dark corner of life. My advice is for everyone to keep an open mind and get defensive only, and only if they are attacked.

I feel the tug to jump into the mud pit and rave and rant, but I will just stop it here with my philosophical reflection on this issue. I would also urge the editorial board of PD to step in when it is seen that someone is attempting to subvert an otherwise intellectual discussion. If they do not enforce this then the PD forum will become the 'gandi gali' where enlightened people like Kumod will lose their voice to irrational 'blokes'. - Aarcee - Sept. 9, 2006

Mr. Kumar, no one is hurting your God or religion here. What the author has done is to extract information from literature available world wide. If we have people like you objecting to such things should all history books of this planet and Internet sites be destroyed as all of them say things which can be twisted to hurt some "bloke"? The trouble is some "bloke" is mentally still in his village, even after all the education which was wasted on him.

Your surname Kumar has been crafted skillfully. No one knows your caste till you go announcing it over the rooftops. I said get out of the victim mentality, remove that silly signboard from your forehead. For people on PD your being a scientist is enough. We do not need more adjectives to your name. - Rajesh Chaubey - Sept. 9, 2006

Aarcee, to say that Indians came in contact with Caucasians who came visiting on ships from Europe during the time frame of 1700's to 1800's is completely wrong. Indians clearly came in contact with Caucasians at least 2600 years back when the Caucasian ‘Alexander The Great’ from Greece (in Europe) invaded India at around 320 BC. These Caucasians did not first come to India via ships but Alexander invaded over a land route. Within a century after the collapse of the Mauryan Empire a racial mix of these Caucasians (who invaded from modern day Afghanistan) ruled a large chunk of India including present day Bihar for centuries. The Greek army was quite diverse and included plenty of Persians, Central Asians and Arabs. All these guys freely married the local Indians and even now their descendents have fairer skin and eye color than rest of us Indians (and who knows might be called Dutt or Mishra).

Also, Turks who are also from Europe invaded India more than 1000 years back. Portuguese came to India almost 600 years back. From Europe to USA, all the Persians identify themselves as Caucasians whenever they fill out any form and they came to India long before 1700's and 1800's. Persians themselves were invaded by Greeks, Romans and Arabs and have this blood mix. Many Middle Eastern people are Caucasians and have settled in India for ages from countries like Syria and Iraq. I think many Indian people who are of fair skin color belong to this mixed stock of mostly Middle Eastern people (BEFORE and after the Islamic invasion) and since they were successful invaders they were able to derive the priest's as well as the ruler's power in India and hence ended up hating a large section of the native population (quite natural for a foreigner) and creating a system of calling themselves God's chosen people (quite common in Middle Eastern societies even to this day, for example the Jews). Chinese, Central Asians and Huns have been coming to India for centuries and even they have light skin color (light yellow). Each of these foreign invaders and their mixed breed who have moved up to be fair colored priests or warriors or anything in between have enriched India and there is no reason to discount this fact or their contribution to India.

Ravindra Kumar, I am sorry if my use of the word Mlechh and SC has hurt you. I used it as an example to point out the fallacy in people assuming that just because they are from so and so caste they are not mixed race (in fact their fairer skin color and hate for the natives points to a higher probability of them having a mixed Middle Eastern and Chinese origin similar to the Latinos in the US). Ravindra Kumar, I understand where you are coming from and it's shameful that the Indian society has treated you in such a brutal manner. I am glad that you were able to withstand these uncivilized hate-filled bullies to study in IIT and become a scientist. This hateful behavior is typical of some societies outside of India and does not represent Indian values but certainly represents the place where these people originally came from (irrespective of their caste surnames). On the positive side, more and more Ravindra Kumar's are coming up now and the truth is slowly and surely being revealed.

In closing I will like to thank Aarcee for this interesting discussion. We all need to know our TRUE history since the regular history is either written or unwritten by the victorious and vested interests and is usually the opposite of true. - Rajendra Kumar - Sept. 9, 2006

Mr. Rajendra Kumar is absolutely right. Migration of Aryan races into Northwest India began at the dawn of time. This process was gradual and when the British started trading with India, there were already people in North India who had so much Caucasian in them that it made the British proverbial jaw drop to the floor ! British colonized the world with the mindset that they were the torch bearers of civilization in the world and it was their mission to bring over the dark skinned native into the fold of civilization and religion. It is said that the British got three rude shocks when they came to India. First, Christianity had already been in India for hundreds of years before they arrived. St. Thomas, one of the disciples of Christ himself had come to India and set up his church in Pondicherry. Second, the British found that Indians worshipped nature and fire and sacrificed animals as a part of the religious rites very much like the Old Testament had described. Thirdly and finally they found that the language spoken by Indians had unmistakable similarities to English. It was later discovered that Sanskrit and Latin were sister languages, and Agni and Ignis (root of the word 'ignition') were similar due to this reason.

When I talked of the Caucasians coming to India, I did ignore the fact that a steady trickle of Semites, Turks and Caucasians had already been coming through for centuries over land through the northwestern passes of the Mountain ranges of Afghanistan. The western world was oblivious to this fact. At that time, in their books, Vasco da Gama, Ferdinand Magellan and Marco Polo were the first few to visit India.

Thank you for correcting me. It is kind of you. It is through decent discussions such as this that we as a people learn together. - Aarcee - Sept. 9, 2006

Mr Aarcee I think you are confusing the British with the Spanish and the Portuguese invasion of the Americas. England is a Protestant nation and the comments made by you pertain to post-inquisition Catholic mindset. There is a big difference between the two. The English came to India via the East India company to make profit, pure and simple. One thing led to another and the East India Company ended up ruling societies just like some people allege the big corporations do even today.

In fact, the United States of America was a colony of the East India company too. Much before Lord Cornwallis led the British against Tipu Sultan, he led them against the Americans but was beaten back by the Americans at Yorktown and was rehabilitated in India since he was related to the Queen. The British Parliament took over India only after the 1857 Indian war of independence because the investors/stockholders had lost their trust in the British East India company and wanted the British government to secure their investments in India.

The British East India company used to issue shares somewhat similar to the stock market of today and rich people across Britain brought these share so that they can make a profit. Similar to Enron, WorldCom, Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parikh of today the greedy investors wanted profit via any means possible. Hence you have the opium trade in China and colonization of United States and India. Mind you, these were all done by the British East India company and not by the British Parliament, Monarchy or the Church (unlike the Spanish expeditions).

The divide and rule policy practiced by the British East India Company was an old English trick. The English had successfully used this trick against the Irish and the Scott. Since this was a proven tool and the Indian society was a fertile ground for it's use, the British used this low risk approach to gain control of India in order to make more profit.

Capitalism is always hungry for profits and capitalism without laws becomes barbaric since there is no limit to an investors greed and hunger for profit. The laxity of British officials towards implementing the British laws in a foreign land (India) did cause many grave events in India like the Great Bengal Famine of the 20th century. But the British also united thousands of small kingdoms into an Indian nation, built bureaucracy (IAS and IPS), judiciary (courts), initiated land reforms, build the railways, post office, hospitals, factories, bridges, roads and other infrastructure, ended thugee and supported education. Across the world, capitalism usually tries to create the rule of law and infrastructure since these investments give great returns; British rule was no exception.

Capitalism is also unemotional hence we see certain British governor generals adopting dirty techniques like breaking the self-respect and confidence of the natives to make them willing employees. Just like the corporate world of today, we find in British India, native people who blindly supported the British interests and massaged the British egos got promoted to a higher position. The Scindia of Gwalior and the Wodeyars of Mysore got promoted whereas Jhansi ki Rani Laxmibai and the Mughuls who fought against them got crushed. People who were either independent thinkers, hot-headed, ethical/nationalistic got labeled as troublemakers and the ones who blindly complied, the traitors (from Indian perspective) got selected for a variety of British 'government jobs'. Many times the manipulative British officers who were unethical used the strategy of India bashing and humiliating native culture to inspire and misguide the English troops and administration so that they can turn a blind eye to grave injustice in order to make the empire more money.

But this is all past history! British today are a great people having an immense sense of justice and liberal thinking. Of course like everyone else they do have some bad apples here and there but overall they are lovers of India and nostalgic about the orient and the 'raj'.

Mr Ravindra Kumar the case of your ancestors could have been one of non-manipulative, simple, non-violent and ethical people who got suppressed by violent and highly manipulative foreigners but not under the British rule but under a 'rule' thousands of years earlier! - Som Vishwakarma, USA - Sept. 10, 2006

Well Mr. Choubey, I don't care what do you think and what you don't think about me, my education and my opinions. I have been called everything so far by "better minds with more fruitful education" and probably next I would be even declared that I am not even a son of God like Mr Choubey, Mr. Aarcee, Mr. Mishra and few others so called rationalists here. All this for what? Because I questioned the motive of Mr. Aarcee sighting a sensitive and very personal subject of individual surnames.

Even though, I am an IITian and a graduate of top-10 US university with scientific publications, my scientific temper is being questioned here with ludicrous metaphors like earth is round and what not. You must think you guys are the only rational and brightest stars in the universe for your thinking. I asked for facts and sources from Mr. Aarcee because he ventured to put some arbitrary theory on such a complex and passionate subject like surnames. So far some of the readers have already pointed out the pitfalls and wrongs of Mr. Aarcee article and if some better historians come on the forum, I don't know how many wrongs will further be exposed in Mr. Aarcee's theory and explanations here. Mr. Aarcee, you cannot hide behind the fact that you are ready to accept your wrongs here because you should have given some facts and sources in the first place when you professed it on the forum in the first place itself. Whenever I give a presentation at forums like ACS, AIChE, I have to put refrences in each and every claim that as a researcher we claim to make otherwise it is thrown out in the garbage can. Also, Mr. Mishra the onus of proof lies on the author. I was not the one coming out with some garbage theories and histories of surnames that I have to put clarifications. As a reader of his theory, I was well-within the line to ask for proofs, facts and references. The subject matter is interesting, but at the same time passionate too so Mr. Aarcee, you should have treated this subject with more credibility and not come out with some junk information out of cyber space. You may be aware that in scientific publications even till today, you can quote Wikipedia if you want credibility in publications like Science and Nature. Every information that you read on internet, we have to take it with a pinch of salt that the information may be inaccurate, incomplete and outright false. I spent whole Saturday in MIT library looking for some suitable material, the subject matter is so complex that I could not make out some clear cut decisions about what is wrong and what is right. In stead of crying foul about my rational and scientific temper, Mr. Aarcee, Mr. Chaubey or Mr. Mishra could have just given me the name of couple of books, papers where I could have just referred to see what is the truth and what is false.

I would also say one last thing to Mr. Chaubey especially your arrogance about being right, and rational is only superseded by your judgmental attitude of fellow writers and readers. I say look hard in the mirror Mr. Chaubey, you would get the answer of whose education has been a waste. Before you write anything, read your lines twice and see how personal and below the belt your line of attack is. Your offensive replies gives me personal umbrage, Mr. Chaubey and make me think what could the true reasons behind your obnoxious attack. - Ravindra Kumar, Boston, USA - Sept. 12, 2006

Discussion on this topic is now closed.